Is This Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Part 4

America’s favorite game returns, as Brett and Nazim decide whether Garza v. Idaho (can a lawyer override a client’s request for an appeal when the client waived appellate rights pursuant to a plea agreement) constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, along with a few other half-explained scenarios.  The law technically starts from the beginning but them goes on some kind of weird Mozzarella stick tangent before starting again at (09:28).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8210408/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Advertisements

Barristers Always Pay Their Debts

Today’s episode covers the specific nuances underlying Obdusky v. McCarthy and Holthus, a case with topics as sexy as the names in its caption, including debt collection, mortgages, and statutory interpretation.  Brett and Nazim spice it up even further by talking about non-legal legal work, rooting for the Eagles in the playoffs today, and Nazim’s beloved mason jar.  Law starts at (5:50).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8131268/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Decisions, Decisions

Brett and Nazim celebrate the holiday lull between Xmas and New Years by discussing the recent decisions in Stitt v. US (ACCA interpretation of burglary) and Mount Lemon Fire District v. Guido (ADA interpretation of government agencies), while also vamping about the holiday season.  There’s more nonsense at the end the beginning, so if you don’t like hearing about how to celebrate New Years, the law ends after the case discussion.

New Episode!

The Blake Bortles of Supreme Court Cases

Just in time for the holidays, this week’s episode covers the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which asks the Court whether a 93-year-old monument to World War I veterans violates the Establishment Clause because it is shaped like a cross.  The law technically starts at (02:25), but if you’re no-fun and the title of this episode isn’t intriguing to you, the law starts at (08:00).

New Episode!

Jam Master Judiciary

This week’s episode takes a long over-due detour into the world of International Law, as Brett and Nazim discuss Jam v. International Finance Corp., which discusses whether or not International Organizations are entitled to the same immunity protections as the Governments that make them up Voltron-style.  Law starts at (05:30).

New Episode!

The One with Harrison’s Homework

This week’s episode centers on a listener email, in which an intrepid college student shared a sample opinion he wrote for Virginia Uranium v. Warren (a case about federal preemption of State law), and now Brett and Nazim have to decide whether to join the opinion outright, write a concurrence, or write a dissent.  Talk about Robots taking over the government starts at (01:40); Law talk starts at (08:24).

New Episode!

He’s the Burglar, I’m the Robber

This week’s episode takes a deep dive into the Armed Career Criminal Act, a Federal Sentencing Enhancement Statute that is regularly before the Supreme Court on interpretation issues.  Brett and Nazim discuss U.S. v. Stitt (Is Burglary of a Mobile Home rreeeeaaallllyyyy burglary?) and Stokeling v. U.S. (Are gentle robberies rrreeaaallllyy robberies??).  Law starts at (5:00).

New Episode!

Thanksgiving Mailbag Episode

Brett and Nazim celebrate Thanksgiving early by taking questions from listeners about the law, Thanksgiving, and random things like whether a straw has one hole or two.  The Citizen’s Guide to the Supreme Court will return on December 2nd.

New Episode!

Takings Clause, Civil Procedure, and MAYBE a Cemetary

This week’s episode discusses Knick v. Township of Scott, PA, which on its face deals with the correct forum for Takings Clause cases, but on the sly is probably the best fact pattern we’ve dealt with so far on the podcast.  The law starts in earnest at (10:06), but this episode generally covers Weird Al, realizing the law is boring, how young Nazim looks, bail bonds, and being a real estate lawyer.

New Episode!

Sexual, But Also Offensive

Brett and Nazim cover sex offenders and Separation of Powers in the form of Gundy v. U.S., a case that asks whether Congressional delegation regarding sex offender registration to the attorney general violates the Constitution. The law starts at (06:15), but there’s a fair amount of tangents, including some solid Jeopardy talk.

New Episode!